The principal activity of the TSA for the last two or three years has been to make sure that fliers comply with TSA demands. People that get out of line are the problem. They have long since forgotten what they are there for.

Okay, look, I'm agin TSA and security kabuki, but this is now starting to look like a moral panic and I think we are about to see an absurd overreaction.

TSA is stupid, annoying, and an infringement on my liberties, but not much of an infringement compared to outraged voters demanding legislation all out of proportion to the size of the problem--which is how we got TSA in the first place. I don't want TSA people in prison for years on trumped-up things like happened with the Satanic day care centers.

If movies have taught us anything, it is that the only antidote to a zany scheme is an even zanier scheme.

Oh boy, they've singled out the handicapped, where is Jackie Chiles when you need him?

A survey of 7300 amputees conducted by the Amputee Coalition of America in June showed that travelers with limb loss have been subjected to inconsistent, unfair, abusive and often embarrassing screenings by TSA employees.

There was a great comment at the site where the original article was posted, which I'll take the liberty of forwarding here:

Just a few months ago the feds sued Arizona for passing a law giving cops the discretion to ask for nothing more invasive than proof of citizenship. Now, this same government sees nothing wrong with such intrusive hands on body searches that they amount to sexual assault. So highly trained law enforcement officials cannot check for adherence to federal law by simply asking for papers, but airport baggage inspectors with little more training than high school can perform an extreme body search (without being read Miranda rights) on whomever they please?!!! Is this a crazy nation or what. Actually, a recent study found 20% of Americans suffer from mental illness and many polls show that 20% of Americans identify themselves as liberals. Unfortunately for the rest of us, those same 20% are running the country!

Jay wrote:h boy, they've singled out the handicapped, where is Jackie Chiles when you need him?

A survey of 7300 amputees conducted by the Amputee Coalition of America in June showed that travelers with limb loss have been subjected to inconsistent, unfair, abusive and often embarrassing screenings by TSA employees.

Class action lawsuit?|

waht about if they're amputees like zawahir because they got it blown up figthing americans. or what if they are a muslim boy who got their arm ripped off while doing perfectly normal american things?

More hysteria! The TSA isn't any worse than other government agencies. The only problem is that instead of slowly building up the restrictions over time, the government overreached, so everyone can easily see how much things have changed.

Not that I like the TSA, I just think it's too bad people can't react just as harshly to the gradual erosion of our rights.

It's absolutely asinine to skip all the other options and go right to naked pics and manual examination of passenger genitalia. Dogs, profiling, sniffers, etc. all should be added to the current metal detectors, etc. before such things are even considered. The problem with electing inexperienced and largely stupid people at the Federal level is that 300 million citizens have to suffer for every one of their brain-farts. Hey Obama, pretend that these nuns and kids getting mauled at the airport were Henry Louis Gates. You'd be flipping the fuck out, wouldn't you?

jr565: "Ok, what about the muslim american woman who has a prosthesis because of bereats cancer? Is there any outraged if the TSA looks at her prosthesis? And lets stipulate she looks really nice."

Let's stipulate that you have flown twice in twenty years and are the perfect candidate for a position with the TSA. You are the epitome of the breed, the ne plus ultra of TSA-"think" the guy who can argue that the five year old is as potentially dangerous as the twenty five year old guy just landed from Yemen, the very essence of the TSA, the guy who can as enthusiastically frisk a sixty year old businessman from Omaha as a thirty year old from Saudi arriving via Amsterdam. You are it, dude, the absolute bullseye of a candidate for the TSA.

So highly trained law enforcement officials cannot check for adherence to federal law by simply asking for papers, but airport baggage inspectors with little more training than high school can perform an extreme body search (without being read Miranda rights) on whomever they please?!!! Is this a crazy nation or what.

Michael wrote:Let's stipulate that you have flown twice in twenty years and are the perfect candidate for a position with the TSA. You are the epitome of the breed, the ne plus ultra of TSA-"think" the guy who can argue that the five year old is as potentially dangerous as the twenty five year old guy just landed from Yemen, the very essence of the TSA, the guy who can as enthusiastically frisk a sixty year old businessman from Omaha as a thirty year old from Saudi arriving via Amsterdam. You are it, dude, the absolute bullseye of a candidate for the TSA.

So you're ok with the TSA (or whoever handles security looking at a womans prosthesis if she's a muslim right?

Michael wrote:Let's stipulate that you have flown twice in twenty years and are the perfect candidate for a position with the TSA. You are the epitome of the breed, the ne plus ultra of TSA-"think" the guy who can argue that the five year old is as potentially dangerous as the twenty five year old guy just landed from Yemen, the very essence of the TSA, the guy who can as enthusiastically frisk a sixty year old businessman from Omaha as a thirty year old from Saudi arriving via Amsterdam. You are it, dude, the absolute bullseye of a candidate for the TSA.

How many times must I repeat? I'M OK WITH PROFILING? PROFILE PEOPLE WHO ARE THREATS. But also, fix your security holes because a profile sint' everything. Certainly a muslim from Saudi Arabia is more likely to be a terrorist, but taht shouldn't mean that you should only concentrate on him and ignore the less obvious threats that you let pass under your nose.

jr565: No, I am not OK with that, but I am OK with you applying for a position with the TSA because I think you perfectly represent the stupid smugness of the whole enterprise. You would offend everyone equally which is the point of the agency.

Lincolntf wrote:It's absolutely asinine to skip all the other options and go right to naked pics and manual examination of passenger genitalia. Dogs, We should sic dogs on people rather than make them walk through a scanner. Or rather, I'll use the other sides hyperbole. We should sick wild vicious, rabid dogs to tear at the flesh of innocent americans and bite poor little children on their faces, rather than make them walk through a machne? Wasnt one of the objectiions to our treatment of detainees at abu ghraib that we scared detainees with dogs?

Michael wrote:No, I am not OK with that, but I am OK with you applying for a position with the TSA because I think you perfectly represent the stupid smugness of the whole enterprise. You would offend everyone equally which is the point of the agency.

So, even though she's a muslim you would still not look at her prosthesis? Would it be theoretically possible that she might put a bomb in her prosthesis, if she were suspicious would you say that people could look at her prosthetic limb? Or, are you saying taht even if she were suspicious we must NEVER look at prosthetic limbs no matter what even as part of profiling someone? That will make it easy for terrorists to bring bombs on board planes. Just find terrorists that blew off their limbs when they were working on their car bombs. They'll be above reproach.

Hmm. I'm in the minority here--- for some reason the scans don't bother me; I'm kinda surprised at the furor over them. I feel detached from that ghostly grey image (one of thousands in succession) flickering on a screen yards away from me. I don't feel toward it anything like a relation to an "image of me naked" : perhaps it's the facelessness & fleshlessness of it, and the impersonality of my relation to whatever TSA official(s) look at it.

Like LoafingOaf in a previous thread, I also wonder if this is a response to actual intelligence, e.g. picked up "chatter" that more attempted attacks of a certain kind are in the offing. Maybe it's because I always feel some anxiety about flying, and have to fly regularly (no choice), but the continued effort at better security (with improved technology) is important to me. (I admit that this may well just be a psychological placebo.) I'm kinda bothered by the apparent encouragement of civil disobedience on this (actual pranks at the airport, as opposed to a boycott of airlines, seeking alternatives to flying, etc.). (1) I do feel sorry for the agents, who are just doing their job (the ultimate purpose of which is, after all, our security). (2) More troublemakers (trying to make a political point) on those long lines just means more delays. (3) The more distractions & hassles the TSA have to deal with, the less attentively & effectively they'll do their proper job.

I do think the larger context in which these changes are happening greatly affects their reception. That is, under the Obama administration, post-Obamacare: an environment in which a sweeping, dramatic, woefully ill-considered governmental intrusion into one of the most intimate areas of our lives (health care) has been forced upon us, against the will of a majority, with insufficient explanation/ justification. ("Insufficient explanation/ justification" is to put it charitably: they passed the thing without reading it or giving anyone the opportunity to properly analyze it; and what passed for justification was riddled with misinformation, deceptive slogans, and just plain lies-- e.g. that it would cut costs, that you'd be able to keep your plan, etc..)

So I do get the feeling of recalcitrance; it's only natural to distrust the government, yet again, here. After all, "better security" may amount to no more than "health care reform": a change (instituted by "experts" who "know better," who feel no need to justify themselves to us, since they have the power to do whatever they decide to do-- ostensibly what's "best for us") that actually makes our lives worse, with none of the touted benefits. And in so doing, obviating changes that *would* make for real improvement: e.g. more rigorous & effective profiling. Still-- I don't know if there's specific intelligence re terrorism driving this. And the scans just don't seem that big a deal to me. (Maybe I'd feel differently if I had children, or if I was a famous-- if my identity is well-known, public, then that image is more personally correlated with me, could be used against me.) There's a whiff of hysteria about this, just as there was about the Patriot Act.

So I don't know. I ask myself these hypotheticals: would these changes have been made under Bush? Would his administration have better explained & justified them? Would there have been the same kind of outcry against them? No doubt there would've been an outcry… but maybe distributed differently among the population (in terms of political leanings). I'm not sure.

Dogs are not "sicced" on anybody. Have you ever traveled in Europe? They walk circuits throughout the entire airport complex with their handlers. Long before and long after you pass through the security gate you see the dogs busily sniffing around.If someone prefers having their Grandma groped to having a schnauzer walk by, then they've got issues.

Poking holes sounds like it must have some serious entertainment value in the boring flyover. Once you're done with your sudoku and crossword puzzles, make sure to go outside and poke some holes in something.

With all these TSA agents acting stupidly, Obama's schedule is going to be packed with beer summits for the next few months.

Yup. The TSA Porno Scanners are the new Henry Louis Gates Jr, the new ACORN, the new Van Jones, the new Shirley Sherrod, the new New Black Panthers, the new NPR, the new SEIU, the new how fucking much is that Michelle Obama dress, the new what religion IS Obama, the new is Hillary thinking about running for something, the new [insert global warming joke here...], the new Death Panels, the why won't Obama repeal DADT, the new why won't Obama close Gitmo, the new Obama overseas somewhere, and lastly, the new George Soros.

Lincolntf wrote:Dogs are not "sicced" on anybody. Have you ever traveled in Europe? They walk circuits throughout the entire airport complex with their handlers. Long before and long after you pass through the security gate you see the dogs busily sniffing around.If someone prefers having their Grandma groped to having a schnauzer walk by, then they've got issues.

Yet if the TSA introduced dogs into the mix, we'd hear how the dogs are scaring the children, and how they're making peple afraid for their lives because of the growling dogs. The fact that you just outlined a perfectly reasonable proposal doesn't matter, because the TSA are a bunch of troglydytes who want to kill us with their dogs. In fact they are going to use their dogs to conduct full body cavity searches on us before throwing us in rape boxes where we and our children will be groped and fondled.But as for your suggestion, sure, if you want to bring dogs into the mix I don't mind. Beucase that is sensible and in certain cases they serve a valuable service. Only that doesn't negate the need for scanners either.

The secret is out and TSA has lost its power over us. The TSA king was allowed to pretend it had clothes on out of solidarity for our fight against Bin Laden. Everybody knew soon enough that we had adopted a mean spirited Federal Agency that did zero to protect anyone...but we hung in there to show solidarity. Then this massive corrupt effort to double down on the useless pretenses TSA uses against us has cut the cord of solidarity on which it lived...and we are VERY angry for all of the years we have been abused for no reason at all. It's over. It's done. The genie won't go back in the bottle.

That's a good point, lincoln. A car traveling at 60 mph from D.C. to New York cannot get there in anywhere near the time it takes a train travelling at 220 mph.

Why don't you bumpkins leave the infrastructure to those of us who don't have a fear of bridges, cities, tunnels and other crucial infrastructure? Stay in your McMansions and visit your neighbors only when necessary to have a BBQ and show off your 50 inch plasma screen.

How fortunate for Obama and his administration that the election of November 2,2010 occurred before the current 'firestorm' regarding the TSA search proceedures. I suspect that the GOP would have picked up significantly more seats in the house if the election had occurred ata later date. Say the election occurs on next Tuesday. It seems that the country's tolerance for the TSA and Obama are reaching a new low.

First stimulus, then the GM bailout, ZeroCare, then the BP oil spill, then all his wonderful smart diplomacy, the election, and now this.

I'm starting to get this weird idea that The Zero, far from being Dr Evil's puppet, is actually a brilliant double agent who has infiltrated the sancta of the Left for the purpose of discrediting the whole idea of government, Leftism, and the Democrat Party.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Lincolntf: And George Washington founded the Army, so he's responsible for My Lai.

No, but he'd probably be responsible for what his organization did two years after he left office.

Try again, compadre. This belongs to The Zero and has since January '09.

Virtually all of the "high-speed" rail projects built/proposed in the U.S. are the product of fantasists navel-gazing through Gaia-colored glasses and finding a solution that just happens to exactly match their social /political ambitions. How convenient.Listening to the half-assed Luddites on the Left (who'd probably ban the automobile if they had 67 votes in the Senate) lecturing the rest of us about advancing technology is a real chortler.

Oh yes, JAY. The richest, bestest, (slowest) nation ever in the history of man excels at keeping people in their homes, yelling at each other over the internet, and not building practical ways to quickly move people and freight from city to city. That's one thing we're really great at.

Why don't you run for mayor of some flyover town on the platform of not having modern transportation links to other cities? We get it. Connection is not your thing. Build a moat around your little village and bleat off till your heart's content. And roast some marshmallows in a big bonfire behind your protective walls.

Big Gov...You are correct. There are some hills and a few surrounding mountains on the RR tracks from Chicago to Miami. the east coast lines have to go down the coast east of the Appalachians but the mid-western lines go down through Chattanooga to Atlanta and then southeast to meet the eastern lines to Florida. This IS the reason Atlanta is located where it is located...getting RR lines around the Appalachians and crossing the two rail systems. Location later made Atlanta into a hub for Delta Airlines. Now ATL is the busiest US Airport, measured in number of passengers and number of flights. We know all about the TSA.

The richest, bestest, (slowest) nation ever in the history of man excels at keeping people in their homes, yelling at each other over the internet, and not building practical ways to quickly move people and freight from city to city. That's one thing we're really great at.

As a matter of fact, our rail system is great at moving freight around. Really great. In fact, our rail lines are optimized for it, and trains move goods around around our enormous country very efficiently. Which makes sense, because freight movement, unlike people movement, is not particularly time-sensitive and there's a lot of ground to cover.

If you want high-speed trains you need new, dedicated track that's welded together rather than laid end to end. Probably a narrower guage, too.

Anyway, as AJ pointed out, as soon as your fast trains become popular someone will bomb them and we'll be getting groped before our 5 hour train ride instead of before our 2 hour plane flight.

So, rather than spend trillions on choo-choos, just fix airport security. It can be done.

Yashu wrote:So I don't know. I ask myself these hypotheticals: would these changes have been made under Bush? Would his administration have better explained & justified them? Would there have been the same kind of outcry against them? No doubt there would've been an outcry… but maybe distributed differently among the population (in terms of political leanings). I'm not sure.

If Bush had implmeneted them the lefties would have gone crazy. THey suggested that the govt being able to see what books took out of the library was tantaamount to an intro to nazi germany (Even though if you look at the library card on any book you can seem the names of the people who took it out before you, and that has never been a problem). Now Obama's TSA implements what it considers common sense techniques to help deal with airline security and the other side turns a routine pat down, which have been practiced for I don't know 50 years at airports, or wherever there is security, and all of sudden the TSA is a bunch of child molesters who are out to grope children. It's ludicrous. As to what Bush would have done, I bet if you asked him his opinion he would say that the TSA should implment procedures that best protect people on planes and to give the TSA the protocols and tools it needs to best deal with the threat. The rabid left and the rabid right also converge on the same plane of insanity from time to time.

California has somehow found high-speed rail passes through their mountain ranges. But with "JAY's" newfound techno-fear, there ain't no way passes can be found for minor mountain ranges.

Also, if it uses rail, it must run on steam at, oh, say no faster than an average automobile. 60 mph tops for trains. At least according to the guy who thinks that Atlanta shouldn't exist. It might as well be "Atlantis" to him... all those hills are foreboding.

The right seems to be afraid of technology. Why is this? Sputnik's launch of a space race was a good thing, but then they came up with "Star Wars". Is that what it's all about? If there's no military benefit then it's no good?

The problem is, it falls in with all the other quick easy fixes of the right. Some things are not easily reconciled. Civil liberties and "privacy" with security? It can be done but as those late to the game here prove, not as easily as Bush pretended.

Modern transportation and minor mountain ranges with a maximum elevation of 6,000 feet? Impossible!

I'd actually love to see the Libs try to build there happy-fun-time-speedy-choo-choo from Chicago to Miami (if they were using there own damned money). Imagine how many people, beasties and "protected natural areas" that sucker would disrupt. They'd be suing themselves into oblivion within days.

Jason: More hysteria! The TSA isn't any worse than other government agencies.

Gotta start somewhere.

The only problem is that instead of slowly building up the restrictions over time, the government overreached, so everyone can easily see how much things have changed.

So it's the government overplaying its hand that's the problem, not the building up of restrictions?

Not that I like the TSA, I just think it's too bad people can't react just as harshly to the gradual erosion of our rights.

Some dude once wrote something about the natural human path of reaction to that gradual erosion of rights, something about people being more disposed to put up with shit, while shit was sufferable, rather than just wrecking the political joint they were used to, until a whole lot of shit had been shat on them for a considerable period of time, and they finally just lost their shit about all the shit they'd been putting up with, because all experience hath shewn, that's just the way people tend to react to being fed shit for extended periods by their Governments long established. Some dude, Tom somebody. Did say something about George Bush starting it, though it may have been some other George he was complaining about, maybe George H.W.

A car traveling at 60 mph from D.C. to New York cannot get there in anywhere near the time it takes a train travelling at 220 mph.

The train from NY to DC takes longer than a plane and costs more. If you are looking for fast, you take a plane, if you are looking for economical you take a bus or drive. (And have you ever been on the jersey turnpike (or i95 for that matter). What makes you think people are going 60? Hell, the rumor was that drug mules would drive at 200mph, which also beats your mythical train any day).

And I am vastly amused by the idea that any kind of train is more high tech than a plane that flies through the air. Air travel is very American, too, isn’t it. The Wright brothers and everything.

Why don't you run for mayor of some flyover town on the platform of not having modern transportation links to other cities?

Oh for fucks sake!

Three methods of transportation. Rail, Air, Car. Which one is the oldest? Which is the newest? Which is the fastest? Which one's provide the most efficient travel in a huge, sprawling country?

People have voted with their pocketbooks. There is a reason rail works very well for freight and not so much for people in this country and yet, some people just cannot accept it. They are the luddites.

Maguro: As a matter of fact, our rail system is great at moving freight around. Really great. In fact, our rail lines are optimized for it, and trains move goods around around our enormous country very efficiently. Which makes sense, because freight movement, unlike people movement, is not particularly time-sensitive and there's a lot of ground to cover.

Surprising how few people know that. (Me, for example, until quite recently.) I understand that Europe, on the other hand, relies on far more wasteful and inefficient trucking for most of its freight movement.

WITHOUT CHINA YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THE FUCKING EYEGLASSES NECESSARY TO CORRECT FOR YOUR CRAPPY VISION, JAY1!!!!1 AND DON'T FORGET TO CALL THEM ANCIENT FOR COMING UP WITH GUNPOWDER THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO, THE NECESSARY ELIXIR OF SECOND-AMENDMENT DEFENDING, GUN-TOTING RED-STATE FLYOVER PEOPLE. THEY ARE ALL SO VERY BACKWARD!!!!!

It's the "oooohhh ahh factor" of getting their WAY WAY faster! And Cheaper! And in more, yes, MODERN transportation, which you claim to care about. I dont' know why I am responding because are a complete and total idiot.

I love the fact that you think government funding of rail lines = consumer spending.

Amtrak loses billions.

California does not have "high speed rail" it has a government (one with an $18 billion dollar deficit) committed to funding a project (onstruction date is subject to funding, which would be 2012 at the earliest).

Yes, in the Northeast, idiot. I lived in the northeast for SIX FUCKING YEARS. Train is the more expensive than the plane while also being slower. Awesome!

If you want cheap, you take the bus or drive. If you want fast, you take a plane. If you have time to kill (because it's slower than a plane) and money to burn (because a train ride for DC to NY was MORE expensive than the plane) then you took the train. God.

"Fuck off and and shut your mouth until you can try arguing in good faith for once in your life."

Quite possibly the funniest thing ever posted. No wonder you continue to change your name here. Or are you a Moby, attempting to show liberals as complete morons? If so, good job. Jeremy busy so your picking up the slack?

I dont' know why I am responding because are a complete and total idiot.

But that should make you feel right at home given how remedial your grammar is.

Anyway, I'm stupid enough to know how to use magnets to propel your fat, lazy flyover butt through the air at 220 mph. And this is not only a more recent invention than Da Vinci's air travel machine, but one that would be cool to watch. ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU MISS THE BEND ON THOSE INSANELY TREACHEROUS MOUNTAIN PASSES THAT "JAY" WARNS US ABOUT AND GO SPLAT!!!!1!1!!!!!

Yes, Texas and Virginia has Republican Governors and budget surpluses.

Oh wow!!1!!1 What will they spend them on? Prisons!?!?!?!??!

How entertaining. Fuck Broadway! Fuck Hollywood! I'm going to colonial Williamsburg and then on to watch an execution of an ill-defended citizen in TEXAS! Whoopee!!!! Maybe even a rodeo!!!11!! Lasssoooo me a "JAY"!!1!1!

Um, you do realize you're saying this because your silly assertion was proven false, right?

I'm saying this because I don't give a shit about Texas' and Virginia's vaunted budget surpluses and because no one gives a shit about Texas' and Virginia's vaunted budget surpluses. They don't have the kind of attraction and draw that New York and California do to foreign travelers and they probably never will.

If you had any class in your upbringing and character and any respect for culture whatsoever, you would see this. But of course, you don't.